Is there a reason for this? Wikipedia:KiB clearly explains that KiB is an international standard. Using KB instead of KiB leads to ambiguity. This can be problematic, especially concerning partitioning (=this article). I propose undoing these edits unless Polyzen has a good reason for them.

Although Polyzen should have indeed explained the reason for his edits using the edit summary, I think that the problem here is not what is the international standard, but what are the actual lengths in bytes to be represented case by case. It's easier if I give an example: the #Problems with MBR section says "MBR stores partition sector information using 32-bit LBA values. This LBA length along with 512 byte sector size (more commonly used) limits the maximum addressable size of the disk to be 2 TB/TiB. Any space beyond 2 TB/TiB cannot be defined as a partition if MBR partitioning is used"; now, (2 ^ 32) * 512 = 2199023255552 B = 2 TB, so I guess in this case TB is ok, while TiB would be ok if 500-byte sectors were used (is it even possible? I don't remember...)

This is just my interpretation, though, I'll try to invite Polyzen to participate.